On Nov 6, 2007, at 11:01 AM, N_Ox wrote:
Le 6 nov. 07 à 07:05, Juan Manuel Palacios a écrit :
So, do we have an agreement on this? Any objections to turning on warnings against /Library/Frameworks in the upcoming MacPorts 1.6? I support to move to discourage writing to that directory, gcc's - F flag should allow any application needing a framework to look for it under prefix, just as Anders makes it clean in his message. Any reason why we *shouldn't* move our frameworks into prefix?
And as for macports1.0, we can still rely on configure's --with- tclpackage flag to place it inside prefix in customized installations.
Regards,...
-jmpp
<snip>
Does --with-tclpackage add some tcl code to the beginning of the port executable to add the path to ${auto_path}?
Code is added to the port executable, yes, but only in the form of: ---------- (from trunk/base/src/port/Makefile) ---------- edit = sed \ -e 's,@TCLSH\@,$(TCLSH),g' \ -e 's,@TCL_PACKAGE_DIR\@,$(TCL_PACKAGE_DIR),g' ---------- ($(TCL_PACKAGE_DIR) being received from autoconf through --with- tclpackage) ---------- So that: ---------- (from trunk/base/src/port/port.tcl) catch {source \ [file join "@TCL_PACKAGE_DIR@" macports1.0 macports_fastload.tcl]} package require macports The result is that the port executable is able to load the macports1.0 package, wherever it's put by autoconf (/Library/Tcl being the default). But I don't know about ${auto_path}, I don't think anything about the tcl package is added to it; why are you interested in that? -jmpp